________________
94
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
[VOL. XXXII
Among the three epithets applied to Narasimhavarman I in the present record, the Rōyūru grant applies bahu-samara-labdha-yaśaḥ-prakāśa and vidhi-vihita-sarva-maryāda to Paramesvaravarman I and vasudhatal-aika-vira (forming the latter part of a bigger epithet) to Narasimhavarman II. In the inscription under study, Paramesvaravarman I has been called praja-samramjana-paripulana-nitya-yukta and Kaliyuga-dōsh-ävasanna-dharm-oddharana-nitya-sannaddha while these epithets are applied to Narasimhavarman II in the Reyūru grant in the slightly modified forms: praja-samramjana-paripālan-üdyoga-satata-satya-vrata-dikshita and Kali-yuga-dosh-apahritadharm-öddharana-nitya-sannaddha. The claim of the Pallava rulers from the fifth century down to the age of the present charter to have up-lifted Dharma above the dōsha of the Kali age seems to suggest that their ideal was to revitalise their Brahmanical faith which had been encroached upon by heretical doctrines like Buddhism. The donors of both the Reyūru grant and the present charter are called 'devotee of the feet of the lord, the father'; but, while the Rēyuru grant describes Narasimhavarman II as a paramabhagavata (i.e. devotee of the Bhagavat or the god Vishnu), paramamahēévara (i.e. devotee of Mahesvara or Siva) and paramabrahman? a (i.e. devotee of the god Brahman or devoted to the Brahmanas), his father was a paramami esvara and a paramabrahmanya but not a paramabhāgavata according to the present grant.
Another interesting fact is that the Reyuru grant applies the epithet yathavad-äbhri(hri)tasvamedh-ady-aneka-kratu-yajin to Parameśvaravarman I. The present record of Paramesvaravarman I himself, however, does not credit him with the celebration of the horse-sacrifice. On the other hand, it applies the same epithet to the Pallava family. This shows that the epithet has been wrongly applied in the Reyuru grant to Paramesvaravarman I who did not perform the Asvamëdha till his nineteenth regnal year (i.e. the date of the present grant) and probably never at all.
Lines 10-17 record the grant proper. It is stated that the king made the grant on the occasion of the Ayana, i.e. the Uttarayana-samkrānti (Makara-sankranti) in this case since the month specified in line 23 is Paushya. The donee was the Brahmaņa Dēvasarman who was the son of Dōnasarman (Drōnaśarman ?) and grandson of Svamiśarman. The donee's family hailed from the village called Urpuțuru-grama and belonged to the Maudgalya gotra and Apastamba sutra. His grandfather is described as an expert in the Vedas, Vedāngas, Itihasas and Purāņas exactly as the grandfather of the donee of the Reyuru grant.
The gift village was Kubuņūru situated on the right or southern bank of the river Musuna within the Pümi rashtra. The village was made a brahmadeya and endowed with all kinds of exemptions. In the description of the village, there is an expression which seems to read Muvuvadya-margge which either means 'on the road leading to Muvuvaḍya' or 'in the subdivision called Muvuvaḍya'. The king's order was addressed to the inhabitants of the said village which is stated to have been granted for the increase of the longevity and health of the donor. This seems to suggest that the grant was made in connection with the king's recovery from an illness. The officers were ordered to exempt the gift village from the collection of taxes and other levies while on their tours of collection. The transgressor of the order was liable to physical punishment.
The above section is followed in the document in lines 19-21 by two of the usual imprecatory and benedictory stanzas. Another verse that follows in lines 21-23 says that the executor of the grant was Kulavarman who was the son of Nagi° or Tagi-pallava and the ruler of Nandakurra. This stanza is also found in lines 20-21 of the Reyuru grant in the following modified form:
Somaditya-suta[*] briman-Nandakurra-nripesvaraḥ [*] ājñāptil-basanasy-asya Rājāditya[*] pratāpavān [*]
The Successors of the Satavahanas, pp. 196-97. Sec also above, p. 89.
